South Buffalo

First things first: The flag-related image that I find most offensive is that of Donald Trump hugging, kissing, and fondling the red-white-and-blue symbol of the USA.

That being said, the recent controversy surrounding Nike’s decision to pull a special edition shoe with a 13-star flag on its heel, in response to concerns expressed by activist and former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick that the image is offensive and tied to slavery, is both poignant and complex.

Nike’s Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July shoe

There’s a part of me that would like to push back against the usurpation of historic symbols – by hate groups and bigoted individuals – by obscuring whatever meaning they have imbued in the object by using/wearing/waving it myself. But I realize that such action by one 69-year-old Italian American male in Buffalo, New York would have miniscule impact, and might cause further offense, discomfort, and consternation.

So I won’t be lobbying for Nike to liberate the controversial shoe. But I will address hateful symbolism in my South Buffalo neighborhood.

While there may be doubts about whether Betsy Ross – an 18th-century Philadelphia seamstress – actually designed the 13-star flag, there is no uncertainty regarding Colin Kaepernick’s conclusion that the so-called “Betsy Ross flag” is being waved and worn by a segment of our society as a symbol of white supremacy. I’m confident that I have seen evidence supporting that conclusion a mere three blocks from my humble home.

40 Indian Church Rd. (taken by AJG 07-08-2019)

For the past four years, I have observed an ever-changing front porch display at 40 Indian Church Road. The house is situated a short walk from Seneca Street and Cazenovia Park at the northwest corner of Parkview Avenue and Indian Church. While the dark brown, well-kept century-old residence may initially appear welcoming, the occupants’ choice of symbols and words reflect – in my opinion – the sentiments of bigots and white supremacists.

A day or so after the initial national coverage of Nike’s decision to pull its “Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July” shoe, the facade at 40 Indian Church suddenly displayed two large flags: the “Stars and Bars”, which sports three broad stripes and is the first national flag of the Confederate States of America, and the 13-star, 13-stripe “Betsy Ross” flag.

If I had not frquently walked by the corner of Indian Church and Parkview, I might have thought that the flag-hanger was trying to highlight the dissimilar aspects of the two flags, and the fact that they couldn’t be easily mistaken for one another. But I’m well aware of the series of flags and signs at 40 Indian Church Road that have defiled the neighborhood for years. And, I could also see the carefully arranged objects resting between the pair of 3’ by 5’ flags. With that information in hand, I do not hesitate to interpret the “Stars and Bars” and “Betsy Ross flag” display at 40 Indian Church as a glorification of an America where slavery was legal and the federal government’s power was insubstantial.

Nestled amongst the flowers and front-yard knick-knacks on July 8th was/is a cluster of three hand-held flags: the well-known Confederate battle flag (with the red field and diagonal dark blue cross and white stars), the German national flag, and the “Gadsden Flag” – a historical American Revolution flag with a yellow field depicting a coiled rattlesnake and the words “DON’T TREAD ON ME.” [The Gadsden flag is often described as an example of a historic symbol co-opted by groups such as the Tea Party and the white supremacists movement.] There also was/is a choo-choo train weather vane sporting a small Confederate battle flag.

(taken by AJG 07-08-2019)

[Note: I first started noticing the DON’T TREAD ON ME proclamations a number of years ago planted in rural front yards in Wyoming County alongside anti-Obama, “Repeal the Safe Act” and anti-Cuomo signs.]

As I wrote here about two years ago [see https://withallduerespectblog.com/2017/08/21/buffalo-must-address-homegrown-bigotry/], 40 Indian Church Road and its pro-Confederacy displays are situated diagonally across the street from BEREA Church of God in Christ (C.O.G.I.C.) and its predominantly non-white attendees. Although it is no longer in sight, there was a period of time when a sign with an image of cross-hairs unambiguously proclaimed, “WARNING – IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOU ARE IN RANGE,” reinforcing the aggressive message of the multiple Confederate and “DON’T TREAD ON ME” flags.

(taken by AJG Aug. 2017)

As recently as May 2019, 40 Indian Church Road simultaneously flaunted three large Confederate flags: the Confederate battle flag, the “Blood Stained Banner” (the third national flag of the Confederacy), and the “Stars and Bars.”

(taken by AJG 05-02-2019)

A month-and-a-half earlier, a Confederate battle flag and flag of Germany were joined by a banner that frequently is on display at 40 Indian Church Road, a Texas “COME AND TAKE IT” flag with a white field, a black star, and the silhouette of an M4 AR15 machine gun. This defiant proclamation is an updated version of a flag used in 1831, at the first battle of the Texas Revolution against Mexico, which contained the phrase “Come And Take It” and depicted a black star and a small cannon.

(taken by AJG 03-20-2019)

When not displaying Confederate flags, or co-opting provocative symbols from the past, the residents of 40 Indian Church Road have expressed their support for an individual viewed by many as a racist and white supremacist, Donald J. Trump:

(taken by AJG 10-24-2016)

I have chosen not to interact with the residents at 40 Indian Church Road when I walk or bicycle by. I’m not particularly proud of that fact, but I don’t see myself as the appropriate person to initiate a meaningful discussion. But it would be fascinating to hear a conversation between Colin Kaepernick and the folk who live at 40 Indian Church Road on the issues raised by “the Nike controversy.” Or, on a more practical level, it might be a useful step forward if a community leader were to reach out and facilitate a discussion between the person or persons who “speak” through the flags displayed at 40 Indian Church Road and the leaders and churchgoers at BEREA C.O.G.I.C.

I’ve been trying to write a post about Buffalo’s Common Council for days now. But focusing on the ways such an uninspiring legislative body functions is, well, depressing. To boot, summer weather has finally arrived in Western New York.

So, I’m going to embrace the suggestion from a trusted friend and sometime “guardian angel.” Rather than pen another gloomy post involving Council President Darius Pridgen, South District Council Member Chris Scanlon, or Delaware District’s Joel Feroleto, etc., I will share some photographs that I took on the sunny and breezy final day of June, 2019 along Buffalo’s shoreline.

But, first, I must split a hair.

My environmental allies, the fishing public, the media, State officials, the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC), and virtually every knowledgeable and sensible WNY’er that I’ve encountered, would agree that the pictures that follow were snapped on my trek around the southern portion of Buffalo’s Outer Harbor.

However, the City of Buffalo’s Common Council, at the recommendation of Mayor Byron Brown’s Office of Strategic Planning, excluded from the definition of the “Outer Harbor” contained in the “Green Code” [officially, Uniform Development Ordinance] everything south of the former Ford complex (Terminal A and Terminal B). In doing so, our esteemed legislators have excluded, from the protections of criteria intended to protect the Outer Harbor from inappropriate future development, the following: the former Freezer-Queen parcel (where Gerry Buchheit may or may not still wish to construct a 23-story glass-and-steel tower), the Small Boat Harbor, Buffalo Harbor State Park, Gallagher Beach, the Tifft Street Pier, etc. [Note: Here’s how the city in its proposed LWRP, the ECHDC, and State DEC, interpreted the boundaries of the Outer Harbor prior to Mr. Buchheit’s proposed Queen City Landing tower at the former Freezer-Queen site: Outer Harbor defined by LWRP-ECHDC-DEC.]

In other words, the enlightened world will think of the following photos as images of Our Outer Harbor. I hope you’ll enjoy them:

And, here are my favorite images for what you will not see – the proposed 23-story tower!

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone

P.S. Please contact Buffalo’s Common Council Members (especially South District Councilman Christopher Scanlon), as well as the Mayor’s office, and insist that the Green Code be amended immediately to include ALL of the Outer Harbor in the “Outer Harbor boundaries” as defined at Section 5.3.3C(1)(a) of the Uniform Development Ordinance. Thank you.

It has been a year-long battle. [See, for example, Giacalone v. WNYMCS – Verified Petition ] But it looks as if a quiet South Buffalo neighborhood – and ancient indigenous burial grounds – will not be encroached upon by a three-story high school building and 24,000-square-foot athletic facility.

I was told today that Western New York Maritime Charter School has signed a contract to purchase the former Buffalo Public School No. 29 facility at 2219 South Park Avenue from South Buffalo Charter School. The parties have yet to determine a closing date.

2219 South Park Ave.

It is not clear whether Maritime plans to use the South Park Avenue building solely as its high school (which is currently located on Genesee Street near downtown Buffalo), or as both its high school and middle school. The 2219 South Park facility, at 63,795 square feet, has approximately the same gross floor area as the three-story high school building Maritime proposed to construct adjacent to the existing Buffum Street middle school.

For the past two years, Maritime’s middle school has been operating at 102 Buffum Street in South Buffalo, a few blocks from Seneca Street. The Buffum Street community has not opposed Maritime’s middle school, which comfortably fits the scale and intensity of the building’s historic use as Buffalo Public School No. 70.

102 Buffum Street

In contrast, Maritime’s expansion plans for a high school and athletic building have met substantial resistance – by residents at the Common Council’s June 2018 public hearing, in two legal proceedings brought in State Supreme Court, and by various indigenous activists. The location chosen by Maritime for its expansion plans created two major concerns.

The existing Buffum Street school is surrounded on the south, east and west by one-story and two-story residences (on Buffum and Silverdale Place), and on the north by an undeveloped field which borders the rear yards of single-family homes on Zittel Avenue. The narrow, quiet residential streets surrounding former School No. 70 were not meant to accommodate the traffic and activities associated with a high school. Maritime’s planned expansion threatened the character of the existing neighborhood, and the ability of nearby residents to peacefully enjoy their homes.

Buffum St. homes

Of equal (if not greater) importance, the 102 Buffum Street parcel is located within an area designated “archeologically sensitive” by the State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO]. It played an important role historically as the site of the Buffalo Creek Reservation’s Mission House (school), and is situated within a couple hundred feet of the Seneca Indian Park. Additionally, the 102 Buffum Street parcel and surrounding area is considered sacred by Seneca and other indigenous peoples as the site of ancient burial grounds.

Seneca Indian Park

Initially, Maritime and city officials, including, significantly, Councilmember Christopher Scanlon, chose to disregard the potential harm the expansion plans posed to archeological and historic resources. However, this past September, Maritime hired an archeological firm, Panamerican Consultants, Inc., to conduct what is known as a “Phase 1A” archeological investigation of the project site.

I’m not a mind reader, but it appears that the results of the archeological study may have convinced Maritime to abandon its plans to construct its high school and athletic facility at 102 Buffum Street, and to search for other options. If my assumption is correct, and Maritime has decided, at a minimum, to move its high school to the South Park Avenue address, I feel it will be a WIN-WIN situation for all involved:

First, human remains will not be desecrated, or archeological resources adversely impacted, by development at the Buffum Street site.

Second, while the 102 Buffum Street site is on a narrow residential street, surrounded by homes, and three blocks from Seneca Street’s commercial strip, 2219 South Park Avenue is located on a major street and bus route with adjoining commercial activities:

Third, in contrast to 102 Buffum Street (where the undeveloped area is sloped, has substantial drainage problems, and could not be readily used for recreational activities), 2219 South Park is adjacent to a city park with ballfields, basketball courts, and playground facilities:

Okell Park

View of rear of school

View from rear of school

I look forward to the official announcement of Maritime charter school’s purchase of the 2219 South Park Avenue facility, and its plans for Buffum Street. And, I wish them well!

That was my spontaneous exclamation on November 20, 2018 when a judge abruptly and angrily ordered me in open court to “stop using” words such as “sham,” and to “use legal words.”

And “sham” wasn’t the only expression to arouse the jurist’s pique. His Honor went on to characterize phrases in my court papers such as “working in concert” and “spurious legal contentions” as “the sort of things that this Court, for one, is tired of hearing from lawyers.”

Here’s the actual exchange [I’ll spare the casual readers of this post the details of the court case, but the curious can peruse the affirmation which contains the above-quoted “unspeakables” for an overview of the facts and legal contentions: krehbiel v. wnymcs – giacalone affirmation 11-18-18]:

…

MR. GIACALONE: … [A]nd that’s why we see this whole thing as a sham.

THE COURT: No, stop using those words.

MR. GIACALONE: Well, how could – –

THE COURT: Don’t use ruse, sham, red herring, all that stuff.

MR. GIACALONE: Really?

THE COURT: Stop using it. Use legal words.

MR. GIACALONE: It is a legal word, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sham? Isn’t that a derogatory word?

MR. GIACALONE: Can I find court cases that refer to shams?

THE COURT: I don’t – – You know – –

MR. GIACALONE: For some reason, we can’t express how we interpret the actions of the City. I don’t have the luxury of assuming that they’re acting in good faith, Your Honor. I observe what they’re doing.

THE COURT: Well – –

MR. GIACALONE: I’m just saying – –

THE COURT: I’m searching for words to make sure that I use them correctly. I read your affidavit in opposition – – or your affirmation, excuse me, not an affidavit, an affirmation. You use the phrase, working in concert. There’s other words. Cannot hide under – – is it a sheaf?

MR. GIACALONE: Sheaf.

THE COURT: – – of affirmations and spurious legal contentions, and the purported need for rescission seems to be little more than a sham, a manufactured excuse to rid themselves of embarrassing litigation. Those are the sort of things that this Court, for one, is tired of hearing from lawyers. Now, I’ll bet if I go to [opposing counsel’s], I can probably find a few.

MR. GIACALONE: Well, that’s the point.

THE COURT: Let me finish. I’ll bet I’ll find – – is that where I left off?

THE REPORTER: Yes.

THE COURT: Wishful thinking. Self-imposed requirement of petitioners who evidently wish to control the project. I mean, there’s a few. They’re a little more subtle, but your briefs and your affirmations would be a lot less – – a lot shorter and less for the Court to read if you left out the hyperbole and the adjectives used to describe your opponents’ thoughts, arguments, etcetera. Those are the sorts of things that this Court, for one, is tired of having to wade through in order to reach a determination. I try very hard to avoid such adjectives in describing arguments and conclusions of counsel and their clients.

…

My surprise at His Honor’s sensitivity to expressions such as sham and spurious is two-fold.

First, it is not difficult to find either court decisions which characterize activities and legal proceedings as shams (from a dissenting opinion by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a per curiam order of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, to a memorandum from our own Appellate Division, Fourth Department), or repeated references to spurious legal claims and defenses in opinions rendered by our state’s appellate courts.

More significantly, the ability of lawyers in a judicial proceeding to “speak freely to zealously represent their clients without fear of reprisal or financial hazard” is so integral to the search for truth and the welfare of society that oral and written statements made by attorneys in connection with a court proceeding are absolutely immune from liability for defamation when such words and writings are pertinent to the questions involved. New York’s highest court established this legal principle more than 120 years ago, “for the benefit of the public, to promote the administration of justice, and only incidentally for the protection of the participants in judicial proceedings.” [See, for example, Youmans v. Smith, 153 NY 214 (1897); Park Knoll Associates v. Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205 (1983); Front v. Khalil, 24 NY3d 713 (2015).]

It has always been my goal as a lawyer to thoroughly, accurately, and diligently represent my clients’ legitimate interests, and to do so in a professional and honest manner. The court papers that so offended His Honor attempted to fully support – factually and legally – my clients’ claims of sham, spurious arguments, and city officials working in concert with the project’s sponsor. Ironically, my conscientious efforts to explain and support my clients’ assertions appear to have irritated the judge who expressly referenced the length of my last submission: “Twenty-eight pages.” [Of course, His Honor did not mention that my affirmation was in response to four attorney affirmations, an affidavit, and a memorandum of law, totaling 31 pages in length (plus several exhibits).]

I may not be the proverbial “sharpest marble in the drawer,” but I can’t for the life of me understand how the words and phrases that I spoke and wrote are not an acceptable part of the legal lexicon.

I also can’t understand why His Honor chose, not once, but twice, to address me as “Arthur” during oral argument, rather than “Mr. Giacalone.” In contrast, my two opposing counsel were consistently identified as “Mr. ________” and “Ms. ________.” [Note: During my 42 years of appearing in courtrooms – at trial-level and in appellate proceedings – no judge or justice had ever chosen to refer to me by my first name.]

But I think I understand why His Honor complied (over my objection) with my opposing counsel’s peculiar request to attach to the official “Order and Judgment” not only the two-page transcript of the Court’s November 20, 2018 oral decision (dismissing my clients’ lawsuit), but the entire 34-page transcript of that day’s oral argument. In doing so, the Court not only went beyond the customary practice in Western New York (and, I believe, elsewhere), His Honor exhibited his unmatched hubris.

As you probably know, Maritime Charter School wants to build a three-story, 65,000-square-foot high school building, and a 24,000-square-foot pre-fabricated athletic building (large enough for three full-size basketball courts) at the rear of its existing two-story middle school at 102 Buffum Street (the former Public School No. 70).

The proposed “expansion” and addition of a high school would negatively impact nearby residents and the ability to peacefully enjoy life in the Buffum Street neighborhood, and threatens the sanctity of lands long held sacred by indigenous groups:

– NYS’s Historic Preservation Office has described the 102 Buffum Street parcel as having “high cultural, historic and archeological sensitivity” due to the likelihood that the Mission House (school) of the Buffalo Creek Indian Reservation was located at the site, and its proximity to the Seneca Indian Park (burial grounds). Archeological resources of great significance to Native American communities, including human remains, could be disturbed if expansion is allowed. See SHPO 06-19-18 letter re 102 Buffum.

– According to Maritime, if the expansion project goes forward, there would be 5 times as many students and faculty at the Buffum Street site, increasing from the current 105 and an estimated 525.

– Maritime’s transportation plan estimates that the combined middle school/high school would bring an average of 104 vehicles to 102 Buffum Street (not counting yellow school buses) each school morning. That’s one car every 35 seconds during the morning rush hour. Nearly as many vehicles would be leaving the Buffum Street site during the peak afternoon rush hour.

– If Maritime’s varsity sports teams play any games at the Buffum Street site, neighborhood residents would experience traffic, parking, and noise issues beyond normal school hours.

– An expanded Maritime school would need an additional 57 parking spaces, and, as a result, the beautiful green lawn and majestic trees on the east side of the existing school building would be removed and be replaced by an asphalt parking lot.

– The number of buildings would increase from 1 to 3. The foundations of the two new buildings would expand beyond the existing paved area at the rear of the school and onto the grassy slope and a portion of the wooded area. These changes would increase the rainwater that runs off the parcel, adding to existing drainage and flooding problems for Zittel Ave. yards. See Charter school addition site plan

City Hall officials, including South District Councilmember Christopher Scanlon, ignored these potential impacts to the Buffum Street neighborhood when they approved the Maritime charter school’s expansion plans this past May and June. Recently, as you may have heard, Maritime asked the City’s Common Council to rescind its June 2018 approval of a “special use permit” which allowed construction of the new high school and athletic buildings. On October 2nd, without any chance for the public to speak, the Common Council – led by Mr. Scanlon – complied with Maritime’s request, rescinding the prior approval. See

Maritime and the Common Council claim that the approval of the expansion plans was set aside so that Maritime can pursue an archeological examination of the Buffum street site. This explanation just isn’t logical. As owner of 102 Buffum Street, Maritime undoubtedly has the right to conduct an archeological study without rescinding the special use permit approval. It’s their land.

From my perspective, the real reason for rescinding the approval is so that the City and Maritime can have a “do-over” – clean up the mistakes the City made when rushing to approve the expansion plans in May and June, and then re-approve the same plans for a new high school building and athletic facility. Maritime’s letter requesting the rescission states, “Maritime still intends to undertake the Project…”

As a lawyer who has spent nearly 30 years representing residents in land use and environmental matters, I have lost virtually all confidence in Buffalo City Hall’s willingness and ability to comply with zoning and environmental review laws. Here are but a few reasons why I believe that the Buffum Street neighborhood cannot rely on City Hall to protect its interests:

Maritime school’s purchase in June 2017 was financed 100% by Ellicott Development, the Paladino family company, and Ellicott Development plans on constructing (and, profiting from) the expansion project. Councilmember Scanlon is deeply connected to the Paladinos. For example, public records show that he received at least 17 political contributions from Paladino-related individuals and entities between Aug. 2012 and Feb. 2016. See Scanlon contributions from Ellicott Development 2012-2016

At the Common Council’s June 2018 public hearing, a respected Native American activist advised Scanlon and company of the potential desecration of human remains if the expansion was allowed, and two residents raised concerns regarding traffic, loss of trees, drainage, and neighborhood character. At the close of the hearing, Scanlon stood up, did not mention any of the issues raised by the public, and advised the council that he supported the project. [Note: Scanlon, and an Aug. 17, 2018 Buffalo News editorial, mention Maritime’s reputation as an academic success when expressing support for the expansion project. However, a chart included in a recent Buffalo News article shows that Maritime’s 7th and 8th graders scored the lowest of any of Buffalo’s 12 charter schools and lower than two-thirds of the students in Buffalo’s public schools. In 2018, only 15.0% of Maritime’s tested students were proficient in ELA, and 10.1% proficient in Math.]\

Maritime’s Director of Administrative Services, David P. Comerford (who appeared on behalf of Maritime at the City’s public hearings), has deep City Hall connections. He spent years as Buffalo Sewer Authority’s General Manager, and his brother, James Comerford, Jr., is the City’s Commissioner of Permit & Inspection Services.

Background: More than a century ago, an elementary school (former Public School No. 70) was constructed three blocks east of Seneca Street on Buffum Street, a 20-foot wide residential road. The masonry building stands two-stories high, and has approximately 43,000 square feet of gross floor area.

The elementary school site is encircled by residences – nearly all of which are one- and two-family homes. The residences immediately east of the school pre-date the 1915 construction of former School No. 70. The homes across the street from the project site on Buffum Street, and on Indian Orchard Place and Silverdale Place (one-block long dead-end streets) were built during or prior to the 1920s. The scale of the two-story elementary school building is in harmony with the neighboring residences.

In October 2016, Buffalo’s Common Council – including Mr. Scanlon – approved the sale of the then-vacant school building (along with vacant land to the rear of 102 Buffum Street) to an affiliate of Ellicott Development for $975,600. According to City of Buffalo documents, it was the developer’s intentions to renovate the property for an estimated $390,000, lease it to an existing charter school, and construct a new 45,000 sq. ft. building which would include a gym. No mention was made of a plan to construct a high school building at the site.

WNY Maritime Charter School began operating its “middle school” at 102 Buffum Street in September 2017. The middle school has approximately 81 students and 24 faculty members. Buffalo’s online property information website identifies the charter school as the current owner of the property, and also indicates that the facility is fully exempt from taxes as an education institution.

Current Proposal: On May 1, 2018, William Paladino, as CEO of Ellicott Development Company, submitted a packet to the City of Buffalo on behalf of its “client” – WNY Maritime Charter School. The October 2016 plan to construct “a new building including a gym (45,000 sq. ft.) and an athletic field” has transformed into a proposal “to construct a new 3-story classroom building” (64,913 sq. ft.) and “athletic facility addition” (24,050 sq. ft.) including “3 full size basketball courts.” [See Charter school Special Use Permit packet 05-10-18.]

Neighborhood concerns: Ellicott Development’s new proposal represents a significant increase in both the scale of development and the intensity of land use at the 102 Buffum Street site:

(a) The number of buildings would triple from 1 to 3.

(b) The gross floor area would triple in size from 43,000 sf to 132,000 sf.

(c) The maximum building height would increase from 2-stories to 3-stories.

(d) The current total of 105 students and faculty at the site would explode to 525 (450 students/75 faculty), five-times its current population.

(e) A beautiful grassy lawn on the east side of the existing school, graced by 8 to 10 mature trees, would be paved over to add an additional 57 parking spaces.

As expressed during a June 5, 2018 public hearing before the Common Council’s Legislation Committee (with Mr. Scanlon in attendance), the proposed Maritime charter school expansion threatens to adversely impact several aspects of the environment protected by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA):

Impact on Land. SEQRA’s regulations expressly include “a substantial change in the intensity of use of land” as one of the “indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment.” The stark contrasts between existing conditions at the site and the proposed addition of a high school building, athletic facility, and parking area reflect – in quantifiable terms – a substantial increase in both the scale of development and the intensity of use of the site.

Impact on Traffic. Although the City Planning Board casually spoke of road capacity “adequate to service any increase in traffic,” Buffum Street is not Seneca Street or a busy commercial thoroughfare. To the contrary, 102 Buffum is located three blocks from Seneca, in the heart of a residential neighborhood, where the principal public street is only 20 feet wide, cars purposely park over the curb because of the narrowness of the thoroughfare, and two of the adjacent streets (Indian Orchard and Silverdale) are one-block long dead ends. Traveling on Buffum Street becomes more difficult, even treacherous, during the winter months. School buses – with only 81 students currently attending the school – already have a difficult time maneuvering around each other as they approach and depart the school. Note: The developer’s unsupported premise that 90% of the high school students will be using public transportation to get to and from the school seems unrealistic and self-serving. And, no consideration has been given to the capacity of either the on-site parking spaces, or adjacent residential streets, to safely handle added traffic when the Maritime high school functions as “home team” for its basketball and other varsity games.

Impact of Existing Neighborhood/Community Character. The above-noted substantial increase in the scale of development and the intensity of use of the site will also have a significant adverse impact on the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood of modest one- and two-family residences. [See 6 NYCRR 617.2(l), 617.7(c)(1)(v).] Their scale and architectural features are in harmony with the two-story existing school building, and are incompatible with the size and sterile façade proposed for the 3-story new classroom building. Additionally, the existing character of the surrounding residential neighborhood will be adversely impacted by the sheer number of students and faculty that would be coming to the site daily – estimated at a combined 525 individuals – starting at approximately 7:15 AM when the buses and autos begin to arrive.

Impact on historical, archeological, and aesthetic resources. The mature trees and green lawn east of the existing school building are a significant aesthetic resource to this neighborhood, enjoyed by the residents who live across the street from the school property, passers-by, and, presumably, the staff and students at the Maritime middle school. This important aesthetic resource – which took generations to reach its current state – would be eliminated in-a-blink-of-an-eye if the proposed project is approved, replaced by a large, noise-producing, exhaust-creating parking lot. Note: Although the Planning Board meekly attached as a condition to its site plan approval the following, “All mature trees must be saved where possible,” it is inconceivable that the developer would not claim that the vast majority of the majestic trees (with their extensive root systems) must be removed to ensure a safe, efficient movement of vehicles into and out of the new parking lot. The project site is located within a couple hundred feet of the Seneca Indian Park, a site deemed sacred and part of a much larger area used historically as a burial ground by the Seneca Nation and others. Historians believe that in 1819 the first Seneca Mission house was built by Christian missionaries at the site of the former School No. 70 – that is, the subject parcel. While the developer and the Planning Board acknowledge that the proposed action is in an “archeologically sensitive area,”a “Phase 1” archeological survey has not been conducted.

Construction-related adverse impacts. Construction-related traffic, noise, dust, etc., would have a profound impact on the quality of life of the surrounding residents for many, many months.

Scanlon’s response: The South District’s Common Council member sat passively throughout the comments made by the public on June 5, showing neither interest, nor concern. But Mr. Scanlon made certain that he expressed support, on the record, for Ellicott Development’s proposed project at the close of the hearing. As reported by WBFO:

“… South Buffalo Common Councilmember Chris Scanlon says the project would be a good addition, especially saving the long-closed School 70. ‘If it continued that way, it would eventually have fallen into a state of disrepair,’ says Scanlon. ‘Here we have a[n] entity, a school, which has a wonderful reputation, which is bringing life back to that building and which will inject the South Buffalo community with a couple hundred bodies each and every day, and they’re further investing between $10-$15 million in that location, which will further revitalize the Seneca Street Corridor.’”

Scanlon’s comments ignore several relevant facts. The presence of the middle school students and faculty has already brought “life back to that building” – life commensurate with the scale of both the century-old building and surrounding residential neighborhood. The building was not in significant disrepair when purchased by the Maritime school, and would almost certainly have been an attractive target for conversion into apartments or condominiums given the current momentum by developers to breathe life into Seneca Street. Also, whatever purported benefit “a couple hundred bodies each and every day” would have on the broader South Buffalo community, it is disingenuous, at best, to imply that attracting over 500 individuals a day, every day, would improve the quality of life for the human beings – homeowners and renters – who call the adjacent streets “home.”

One last point needs to be made. Scanlon not only ignored the concerns of his constituents who will bear the burden of placing a high school in their midst, he disregarded the questionable process used by his political contributors – I mean – Ellicott Development, and its client, WNY Maritime Charter School:

(1) Ellicott Development and the Maritime charter school engaged in a bait-and-switch transaction when the sale of the property was before the Common Council in October 2016, expressing a desire to construct one 45,000 sq. ft. building to house a gymnasium, and then replacing that scenario with a plan to add a 65,000 sq. ft. high school building (three-stories in height), a 24,000 sq. ft. athletic facility, and nearly 5 dozen additional parking spaces.

(2) The filing of site plan documents that omitted important and necessary information concerning existing conditions on- and off-site: the location and scale of the nearby residences; the location of driveways on Buffum Street; and, the number and location of the “established trees” on site.

(3) Despite a grassy front lawn approximately 48’ deep, the developer violated the Green Code’s “posted notice” requirement by ignoring the mandate to post a sign “clearly visible from” and “within 10 feet” of Buffum Street. Instead, the public notice was hidden in a classroom window more than 50’ from Buffum Street, obscured by the glare and light reflecting off the school window.

It appears to me that Councilmember Scanlon is more interested in protecting the interests of the developer (who also happens to be an early and faithful campaign contributor), than preserving the quality of life and existing character and historical significance of the surrounding residential neighborhood.

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone

If you’re not in a hurry, and are yearning for a respite from the frigid cold, or a peaceful place to help forget about a stressful 2017, here’s a sampling of the pleasures at South Buffalo’s gem, the historic Buffalo & Erie County Botanical Gardens:

With All Due Respect (and, wishes for a surprisingly positive 2018),

Art Giacalone

Posts navigation

CATEGORIES

DISCLAIMER

This blog is provided for general informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel. Persons requiring legal advice should retain a properly licensed lawyer. No attorney-client relationship will be formed based on use of this site and any comments or posts to this blog will not be privileged or confidential. ***************
This blog's author, Arthur J. Giacalone, does not intend or consider the communications at this blog to be ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. The primary purpose of the communication is not for the retention of Mr. Giacalone's legal services. [See definition of "Advertisement" at Part 1200, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.0(a).] Nonetheless, in case the proper authorities choose to treat this web site as ATTORNEY ADVERTISING, the street address, phone number and email address of the law office of Arthur J. Giacalone are: 17 Oschawa Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14210; (716) 436-2646; AJGiacalone@twc.com.